What is Reddit's opinion of Microsoft Academic Search?

From 3.5 billion Reddit comments

It looks like prior to his succession he published as Prince Akihito and his father published as Hirohito Emperor of Japan

Are you complaining about what Google puts on page 1?

scholar.google.com/cloth+masks+infection+control

academic.microsoft.com/search?q=cloth masks infection control

You could search for "Foreign Affairs" on Microsoft Academic and sort by citations. The results are shown here.

You will then get all results; these the top 5:

1. Putnam et al. (1994), "Making Democracy Work" (24,383 citations)
2. Houghton et al. (2001), "Climage Change 2001: The Scientific Basis" (10,486 citations)
3. Diebold/Amsden (1989), "Asia's Next Giant: South Korea and Late Industrialization" (6,063 citations)
4. Huntington (1993), "The Clash of Civilizations" (6,036 citations)
5. Krugman (1994), "The Myth of Asia's Miracle" (4,977 citations)

Yes, there have been studies. "mental and physical effects of lockdown covid-19" search keywords.

https://academic.microsoft.com/search?q=mental%20and%20physical%20effects%20of%20lockdown%20covid-19&f=&orderBy=0&skip=0&take=10

Sounds can have two meanings, similar to a bay or a strait.

>Definition In geography, a sound is a large sea or ocean inlet, deeper than a bight and wider than a fjord; or a narrow sea or ocean channel between two bodies of land (see also strait). There is little consistency in the use of "sound" in English-language place names.

https://academic.microsoft.com/topic/203718221/publication/search?q=Sound%20(geography)&qe=And(Composite(F.FId%253D203718221)%252CTy%253D%270%27)&f=&orderBy=0

You're not going to get an answer from him because he's just riding the studies are being abused and therefore that's why narrative may (or may not) hold up train that's going on in this thread.

If you're interested in the research yourself, I recommend these two websites for articles:

https://academic.microsoft.com/home

https://scholar.google.com/

And this one for viewing articles that are behind a paywall:

https://sci-hub.tw/

Don't use them for proof of anything, though.

I am not a Marxist I am more interested in Muzzacato's work. https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2067328055, you on the other hand seem unsure about your beliefs and may be waking up to the realization that Trumpism is not "free thought" or legitimate political discussion. It is a series of dog whistles that provide a sensationalist distraction while tax cuts are given to political donors. Trickle down is proven not to work.

I am not using Marxist speech codes that is a deflection, it is conspiratorial and presumptive. You are playing yourself as long as you rely on statements like "Friend, your Marxist totems and speech codes have no power over me."

What list are you looking at, specifically? The authors of the 2013 study invited participants from four different sources. For the Top100 group whose opinions I cited, they used a Microsoft academic search engine to identify the top 100 AI researchers by citations. I can't figure out how to get that full list (and the website/results likely changed since then), but the current top 10 (see the right sidebar here) includes researchers from Toronto and Stanford.

I'll also just note that I didn't make either of the following claims:

• "AlphaGo is...a sign that AGI is imminent"
• "AlphaGo is...the beginning of the end"

> So Sarah wasn't born a woman, Sarah was born a man who felt like they were a woman

I don't know how to convince you of this point. Gender ≠ sex. Sarah was born in a man's body, but as a woman.

At what point did you decide your gender? Would it be possible for you to decide today that you are a different gender?

Studies have shown that transgender individuals have brains fundamentally different from the typical brain of their sex, including some areas that are more like those of other individuals who share their gender than those of individuals who share their sex.

> Can you quote me where I said they don't deserve respect?

You imply this by saying

> "Sarah" knows that they aren't normal, that they will be ridiculed or made fun of. If "Sarah" was worried about it, they wouldn't be that way.

This implies that Sarah could or should just choose to express herself as a man to avoid ridicule, and it shifts the blame for any disrespect from the shoulders of the person saying to words to Sarah.

by relying on some very clever math and counting up block rewards you very much can.

Namely, within RingCT XMR amounts are set and encrypted using a zero-knowledge proving system, specifically Pedersen commitments. The resulting homomorphic hash can then have mathematical calculations performed on it to verify the validity of its hidden value. In other words, even without knowing, without being able to directly observe specific XMR amounts we can still nonetheless mathematically prove their correctness and confirm that no extra coins have materialized i.e. that inputs and outputs are balanced and everything adds up perfectly, ergo "zero-knowledge" proof.

But how can we be so certain that these Pedersen commitments actually do what they're supposed to? Well, the most significant reason is that unlike more novel ZKP variants, Pedersen commitments are an established, decades-old scheme, having debuted in 1991. That means they have 30 years of continuous use and battle-testing under their belt, we know how they work and, crucially, that they work, which thus makes them very predictable and therefore highly reliable.

This may answer your questions.

https://academic.microsoft.com/paper/2763398287/citedby/search?q=Algorand%3A%20Scaling%20Byzantine%20Agreements%20for%20Cryptocurrencies&qe=RId%253D2763398287&f=&orderBy=0

The fact of the matter is, those of us who are interested in blockchain recognize that there are problems. Bitcoin is ancient in terms of cryptocurrency. Other, more modern projects seek to address a lot of the failings we now see with Bitcoin.

This is as far as I could come up with

- platform: scrape

resource: https://academic.microsoft.com/author/1531017582/publication/search?q=Curtis%20Huttenhower&qe=Composite(AA.AuId%253D1531017582)&f=&orderBy=0&paperId=2128769815

name: Test for GitHub

select: ".count"

index: 1

This is getting all the elements on the page that have the class 'count' then selecting out of the array returned with index 1. This gets you the element, I just can't figure out how to get the innerText of that element with the scrape command.

if you open up the console and type in
document.getElementsByClassName('count')[1].innerText

you will get your number you want, but the documentation for it does not specify how to do that.

So if you can figure out how to get the inner text from scrape you should be good to go

Here is a 2015 update in regards to porins. It's epigenetics in control thus fitting the ID signature, not on the spur evolution signature. Here it is.

Adaptive Resistance in Bacteria Requires Epigenetic ...

journals.plos.org › plosone › article

Mar 17, 2015 · Abstract. Adaptive resistance emerges when populations of bacteria are subjected to gradual increases of antibiotics. It is characterized by a rapid emergence of resistance and fast reversibility to the non-resistant phenotype when the antibiotic is removed from the medium. Recent work shows that adaptive resistance requires epigenetic inheritance and heterogeneity of gene expression patterns that are, in particular, associated with the production of porins and efflux pumps.

• Author: Santiago Sandoval Motta, Philippe Cluzel, Maximino Aldana
• Cited by: 57
• Publish Year: 2015

There's many valid ways to categorize. AI and ML are often separate in taxonomies, but this is subjective of course. For example, they are separate but equal levels in Microsoft Academic [https://academic.microsoft.com/topic/41008148/publication/search?q=Computer%20science] or csrankings.org.

i like:

Associated Press
Financial Times (expensive though, i am not currently subscribed)
Southern China Morning Post

as well as using search engines like academic.microsoft.com plus sci-hub to get access to any related research that might be useful.

Not FOSS by any means, but Microsoft has a similar service https://academic.microsoft.com/

I too am struggling to find a GS replacement, besides simply using Scopus, WOS etc.

Microsoft Academic is Microsoft's solution for academic search.

It's got a lot of bells and whistles compared to Google Scholar, and more importantly aims to be transparent by making it's entire corpus freely available via the Microsoft Academic Graph.

Well, you got the official docs for wasm.
Then there are a couple of papers on more or less specific topics published. Microsoft Academics is a Good place to start.
there are a couple of interesting conference talks available. As well as some good intro videos on YouTube.
You should not bother writing your own compiler ... unless you are really interested in that topic.
If you already know c++, stick with it. The toolchain should be pretty good.
Don’t think there is any special JS knowledge necessary — just look at some basic examples and you will see, that you will only need some boiler plate glue code.

I think this might be helpful: it's a study about potassium iodine (the type of iodine in a form of a tablet you were referring to) and how it affects radiation.

https://academic.microsoft.com/paper/2139980527/reference

Thank you for the reply! Is there a way to know whether the papers are in tier-1 conferences? I tried searching and I'm not sure if journals listed on https://academic.microsoft.com/ constitute as tier-1.

As far as I know, he hasn't published in NT scholarship.

This page at Microsoft Academic shows his publications.

I looked through the first five pages of the results. The title topics were not about the NT documents.

Edit to add: I stand corrected (somewhat): WLC published a book back in 1989, "Assessing the New Testament Evidence for the Historicity of the Resurrection of Jesus."

I still think he's mostly in the philosophy field.

Yes, but still i think the diffusion-based techniques are more powerful, in the sense that they can be tweaked to obtain solutions to a wide variety of problems, the paper i was referring to is this one: http://www.coe.utah.edu/~cs7640/readings/PeronaMalik-PAMI-1990.pdf and this one: https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2150134853 with 12.6k+ citations :)

Neither of those people are scientists. One is an engineer/comedian and the other is a former planetarium manager.

Nye seems to only have written once conference paper which has received no citations: https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2407453564

Tyson has a couple of papers with one or two citations from mostly from when he was a graduate student, some survey papers, and a handful of papers that credit him as like the 12th co-author because of his celebrity:

https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/2163531625

If someone hasn't worked to contribute to science in decades, they can't be considered a scientist. It's like Trump claiming to be an athlete because he was so good a pitcher he could have played professional baseball if he wanted to (actual claim). And promoting scientism on tv for money doesn't count.

If we don't want people to turn against scientists, lets promote actual scientists instead of their smarmy impersonators.